Why We Need "Sister Souljah"

The other day, Publius at Obsidian Wings suggest ed that we retire the whole "sister souljah" concept from our political lexicon. I beg to differ. The "Sister Souljah moment" idea may be tired cliché with dubious political implications, but in this crazy new world of the 24/7 news cycle doing campaign punditry is harder than ever and we therefore need our lazy clichés more than ever. Will nobody think of the journalists? If anything, people need to try harder to more rigorously fit their discussion of all events into a handful of predetermined frames.

James Fallows, meanwhile, suggests "maybe we can also agree that no future book about China need include the cliche 'the Dragon' in its title." I agree to no such thing!

Comments

If you think the writing on China is bad, check out anything folks in the West write about Africa. For a useful guide, see http://www.granta.com/Magazine/92/How-to-Write-About-Africa?view=articleAllPages.

Posted by Jess | July 14, 2008 1:26 PM

People seem to forget that Clinton's Sister Souljah involved two simple claims that killing people is wrong and that racism is wrong. Saying these reasonable things was considered political genius, I am not sure why.

Posted by Craig | July 14, 2008 1:34 PM

Your first mistake is listening to James Fallows when it comes to journalism. In the run up to the Iraq War he was writing about the cultural history of the region, the various interests of regional players, the capabilities of the those players, and likely outcomes of a US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. What the hell kind of journalism is THAT?

Posted by joejoejoe | July 14, 2008 1:38 PM

"maybe we can also agree that no future book about China need include the cliche 'the Dragon' in its title."

Likewise India and "the Tiger".

Posted by right | July 14, 2008 1:44 PM

People seem to forget that Clinton's Sister Souljah involved two simple claims that killing people is wrong and that racism is wrong. Saying these reasonable things was considered political genius, I am not sure why.

Because it is highly courageous to criticize rappers you never heard of until your staff handed you a draft of your speech. It also apparently swings entire elections and changes the course of Western history.

Posted by Jake H. | July 14, 2008 1:46 PM

Clinton's Sister Souljah moment was to pull a quote from an obscure rapper and smack it down. He didn't slap down Ice T because that might actually have cost him some votes and stirred a real debate (ie, a debate among both sides instead of just old white people who never listed to rap music). What Clinton did is no different than what Lanny Davis does when he nutpicks troll rated comments from Daily Kos and holds them up as representive of liberal blogs. It's entirely chickenshit to beat down a strawmen and then puff out your chest like you did something and that is what Bill Clinton did with his 'moment'.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 14, 2008 1:50 PM

It's the pandas' time to shine!

Posted by essrog | July 14, 2008 1:53 PM

I dunno, essrog. Names like "Enter the Panda" or "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Panda" have a nice ring to them, but I'm not sure they convey the intended message.

On the other hand...

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 14, 2008 2:08 PM

Your first mistake is counting yourself a journalist. That's not a knock. You're a pundit, though, with no shred of objectivity.

Don't worry, I think objectivity is overrated and enjoy reading the blog. But I don't think of myself as getting my news here. I'll get my news from a news source and then come here for insight and opinions regarding the news.

Posted by Wampa One | July 14, 2008 2:19 PM

Exactly. The key element of the Sister Souljah moment is not the criticism itself. I'm a huge fan of hip-hop and I thought what she said what stupid and defenseless.

The political move is a way of attacking your supposed base (looking independent), scoring points with people opposed to your base (sending the message that you're secretly one of them), in a way that even your base can't argue with.

If you're a liberal, you can hardly defend Sister Souljah. If you're a moderate independent, you like the maverick action. If you're conservative, you're happy to see those awful rappers attacked (and don't we really know they're representative of most African Americans?).

[sarcasm mode off]

I happened to have downloaded an MP3 of Obama's Father's Day speech and listened to it a few times. There's nothing Sister Souljah at all about it, especially when you listen to the context of the whole speech.

What was objectionable about Clinton's actions what exactly that nobody had heard of Sister Souljah before. If he was going to make an honest critique of hip-hop or the African American community, there were much better targets he could have picked.

Since Rickey Ray Rector had been executed only six months prior, I think this emphasized a sinister interpretation on Clinton's motives.

Posted by The Pop View | July 14, 2008 2:20 PM

What if Siter Souljah lived in China, with her significant other who was nicknamed "the Dragon" and Clinton's criticism was delivered personally by a surragate named "Nixon?"

Posted by JohnMcG | July 14, 2008 2:20 PM

So is this your "Sister Souljah" moment with the left blogosphere, confirming your status as a mainstream journalist and not a member of the netroots?

Posted by pittanylion | July 14, 2008 2:29 PM

Have you ever noticed that the common debate in the news goes like this:
Journalist: "History is predetermination!" One time there was an event that was vaguely kinda sorta like this, and it ended this particular way, so of course that is exactly what is going on now, and exactly the same thing will result.

Politician (or surrogate of): "History is bunk!" This situation is unlike all others that have ever occurred at any time anywhere. As such, here is how it will all work out and why it is good for me (or my guy).

Occasionally the politician (or surrogate) will try to frame the situation in historical terms, but then there are only a handful of acceptable periods of history to call upon: WWII, Truman was unpopular, Kennedy's administration, the Vietnam War, and Regan was god.

Posted by Tim | July 14, 2008 2:41 PM

Have you ever noticed that the common debate in the news goes like this:
Journalist: "History is predetermination!" One time there was an event that was vaguely kinda sorta like this, and it ended this particular way, so of course that is exactly what is going on now, and exactly the same thing will result.

Politician (or surrogate of): "History is bunk!" This situation is unlike all others that have ever occurred at any time anywhere. As such, here is how it will all work out and why it is good for me (or my guy).

Occasionally the politician (or surrogate) will try to frame the situation in historical terms, but then there are only a handful of acceptable periods of history to call upon: WWII, Truman was unpopular, Kennedy's administration, the Vietnam War, and Regan was god.

Posted by Tim | July 14, 2008 2:45 PM

Just thinking, Matt, that you would be the ideal person to write a book called "St George and the Dragon: Why America, a Nation founded on Christian Values, Will Beat the Emerging Menace of China, Connoted Here by the Symbol of the Dragon, With or Without a Lance!"

Just consider the idea from a perspective of political gain. Hawks win elections, and who is the uber-hawk? St George, of course. But consider: he was the uber-hawk because he was saintly, strongly feeling the presence of the Holy Ghost, which is a dove! A paradox, huh? Well, I'm sure you could work it out.

Posted by Robert | July 14, 2008 2:47 PM

Sister Souljah had been quoted in the Washington Post the month before, saying "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" And then she had spoken before the Rainbow Coalition conference the very day before Clinton spoke. It wasn't something out of the blue.

Posted by Kiril | July 14, 2008 2:50 PM

May I also humbly suggest that we stop appending "gate" onto every politically based scandal? It doesn't make sense, people!

Posted by stand | July 14, 2008 3:10 PM

May I also humbly suggest that we stop appending "gate" onto the name of every politically based scandal? It doesn't make sense, people!

Posted by stand | July 14, 2008 3:12 PM

May I also humbly suggest that we stop appending "gate" onto every politically based scandal? It doesn't make sense, people!

Gate-gate?

Posted by rea | July 14, 2008 3:35 PM

Gwen Ifill, NYT, 6/17/92: "With his criticism of comments by Sister Souljah, a polemical performer little known outside the rap music culture, [Clinton] accomplished much for his campaign. He broke through the television news coverage void that had become a source of frustration, distanced himself from the Rev. Jesse Jackson and spoke out only against reverse racism.

And he did it without talking about -- and therefore elevating -- the candidacy of Ross Perot, the Texas businessman who has dominated political coverage for weeks.[...]

The Rainbow Coalition appearance dovetailed with Mr. Clinton's decision in recent days to effusively praise Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York at nearly every opportunity. Exit polls have shown Mr. Clinton's support to be especially weak among white, ethnic voters. Today, Mr. Clinton said the New York Governor had earned a spot on the Supreme Court."

People can decide for themselves what Clinton was doing. Sister Souljah sold 27,000 copies of her record even with the free publicity. There are a lot more than 27,000 militant black rap fans out there but they aren't so militant that they'll listen to horrible rap with nonsensical political messages. Brave Bill Clinton sure was great taking on Sister Souljah. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies....not so much.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 14, 2008 3:41 PM

Similarly, we should resist any impulse that it is no longer necessary that every other book about Islam either use some pun about "veil" or contain a veiled woman on the cover and that every tv report from a Muslim country must start with a shot of the city with the adhan (call to prayer)in the background. Actually I really do like those adhan snippets.

Posted by Abu Noor Al-Irlandee | July 14, 2008 4:44 PM

I was just going to say the same thing about books about Islam, esp. Muslim women! Enough with the veiled/unveiled/lifting the veil, weird projected erotic fantasy nonsense. But yeah, I like the adhan bits too. And I like the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where they're in the tent and the Qur'an is being recited.

Posted by Hana | July 14, 2008 5:28 PM

hesitate about staying in any hotel named with a reference to royalty or the trappings of royalty (the royal X, the Imperial Y, the crown Z, etc), especially in London

Posted by bdbd | July 14, 2008 7:17 PM

Yes, we must not throw any of those cliches under the bus.

Posted by David B. | July 15, 2008 1:34 AM

It must be weird to have your public profile essentially reduced to a campaign ploy.

Willie Horton's wiki profile mentions almost nothing about his actual life -- besides getting let out on furlough.

Posted by am | July 15, 2008 9:21 AM